Sen. Clinton Rips Rumsfeld; Calls for His Resignation

[kpete]

Sen. Clinton Says Rumsfeld Should Resign
AP Interview:

Talk Politics: Join the Debate
By DEVLIN BARRETT

WASHINGTON Aug 3, 2006 (AP)— Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called Thursday for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, hours after excoriating him at a public hearing over what she said was a "failed policy" in Iraq.

"I just don't understand why we can't get new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it's too late," the New York Democrat told the Associated Press. "I think the president should choose to accept Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation."

Clinton confronted Rumsfeld directly on Iraq and Afghanistan earlier in the day, and said his answers left her convinced he should go.

"The secretary has lost credibility with the Congress and with the people. It's time for him to step down and be replaced by someone who can develop an effective strategy and communicate it effectively to the American people and to the world."

more at:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2271419


Video - Clinton to Rumsfeld: Why should we believe your assurances now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtJEywrgNKQ&eurl=

[ruggerson]

1. Good going, Hillary!

Prediction: Now will come a deluge of snide "a little late" and "political opportunist" comments.

Hillary is one of those damned if she does, damned if she doesn't type of pols.

[QuestionAll...]

2. yes, it's could be good.

but I would like to know if she has been calling for this all along or if it's just the right time her to come out and appear to be brave about it seeing as it's not too risky to do it now. makes a world of difference in my eyes.

[babylonsister]

3. Wow! Your prediction came true!

[RDU Socialist]

4. but don't you understand?

Hillary Clinton, as a junior senator doesn't have to demand Rumsfeld's resignation, she can fire him herself. This is a right reserved to Democratic Senators whose names begin with "H" and whose husbands were one time the commander in chief!

[Connie_Corleone]

13. Your prediction came true on the breaking news thread too.

[Botany]

5. A little late to the party, Ms. Clinton?

Where were you when Kerry called for his resignation?

Where were you when Gore gave his blistering speech?

[DURHAM D]

6. I am afraid that if he does resign Bush will be allowed to

start the meter over on the war. I feel certain that Rove is trying to figure out how to gain a political advantage for the mid-terms. I think one way would be for Bush to insist on Rummy's resignation.

[gulliver]

7. It's good to have that out there.

I can't imagine anything Bush is less politically likely to do than what Hillary Clinton tells him he should do. Of course, if Bush were to accept Rummy's resignation, that would be tantamount to conceding the Iraq War is a failure and was mishandled. I don't picture him doing that.

[malachi]

9. Did anyone hear the very condescending, "My goodness," Rummy

uttered after HC set his ass on fire? What a jackass!

[DinahMoeHum]

20. Yeah. . . goodness gracious me, I do declare !

[LeftCoast]

8. Good job Sen. Clinton!

Nice to have her on board!

[WA98296]

10. Weak...with elections rolling around she finally acts like she's concerned

Too little, too late. Where the hell have those requests been before now?

[think4yourself]

11. Watched it live on C-Span

The best was after she blasted him she then left the hearing. Rumsfeld looked on.

[louis-t]

12. Dumbass preznit will only replace him with another neocon

who might even be worse. Not a pleasant thought.

[Disturbed]

14. If the US was a Representative Republic

Rumsfailed would have been Impeached several years ago then tried for his War Crimes.

[jackstraw45]

15. Why not in 2003? 2004? 2005?

Ohhhh....the poll numbers...riiight.

While I appreciate Mrs. Clinton stating the obvious, we need FRESH ideas in Congress.

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. Any time someone dope-slaps scummy Rummy I'm a happy camper

And Hillary did that today. Nice job.

[ccpup]

17. One of the reasons

I'll never feel entirely comfortable at DU is this quite literal Damned if you Do, Damned if you Don't attitude that's so prevalent. Is it too difficult -- whether you agree with her 100% of the time or not -- to just say "Good going, Hillary. Nice way to rip Rummy a new one"? But, with some, there's always gotta be this "where was she when ..." "where was he when ..." caveat that completely ignores the good thing that happened. And who cares whether or not she's positioning herself for an '08 run? Who isn't? I simply cannot imagine a life -- with the hard work and sacrifices you make -- representing people you can never, ever please. And we sit back and wonder why our Best and Brightest decide not to run for office? It's because they see how we Dems eat our own! Without fail.

Anyway, just my two cents.

[Connie_Corleone]

18. You just have to ignore it.

I gave my two cents in the breaking news thread about it.

At the end of the day, you'll just have to ignore it and accept the fact that there are many different opinions on DU.

Belated Welcome to DU by the way!

[ccpup]

22. In the end, of course,

you're right. One of the oftentimes frustrating beauties of Free Speech is the luxury of having a different opinion (gasp!). And that's cool. I, for some reason, didn't quite expect it to be as prevalent, sometimes mean-spirited and other times hopelessly negative here. On the other hand, what better place for Democracy to live?!

And thanks for the How about a in return?

[Connie_Corleone]

23. A toast

[Maven]

27. It has nothing to do with "Damned if you do..."

It has to do with hypocrisy.

While I applaud her for calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, I don't applaud her support for continuing occupation and bloodshed. The whole INVASION was a "failed policy" from the start. Until she can stand up and say that...meh.

[Strelnikov_]

19. Rummy's Rejoinder

[screembloodymurder]

21. Hillary must have had backup.

She wouldn't go this alone. She must have bipartisan support.

[blogslut]

24. It's a start

I also liked that way Lindsay Graham made them all go blank today. Frankly to me, the whole hearing was like an excrutiating game of beat-the-Rummy. Anyone that can take the sanctimonious sneer off that bastard's face is my temporary hero.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. missed that - more info, please?

thanks

[blogslut]

26. paraphrase

Graham queried them on the number of various insurgents and then asked them: "How is it that a fighting force of 200,00 can't contain 50,000 insurgents?

Then came the very long, stunned pause. Of course, he then made them all feel better. Linsay Graham confuses me. I believe in my heart that inside him, there's a decent guy just aching to break out.

[hedgehog]

28. How does she paln to turn the situation around? More troops?

The only turning around I want to see now is our troops turning around and getting on the plane home! I've already had a niece and nephew serve in Iraq once each (pray God they don't have to go back!) I don't want my sons and daughters involved! The last thing we need in 2008 is a candidate who buys the nomination and then promises us victory in Iraq!

New Yorkers - support Tasini on Sept 12!

[Drewskie]

29. That was funny to watch.

Rummy says if you send in too many troops it will look like an occupation, as if already having 130,000 troops there does'nt.

[Recursion]

30. Before it's too late??!?!!!??

What exactly does she see as reasonably probably positive outcomes for us here?

We've lost. We've lost and we've lost hard. Our vacuous war aims made it impossible to win because victory conditions were never defined. The only question left is how much security and credibility we can still salvage.

We have managed to alienate (hell, infuriate) Iran, the one player in the ME we didn't have a handle on, after they were making serious motions towards a kind of detente with us. As if that weren't bad enough (though it is), we then proceded to hand Iraq, the geographical and strategic lynchpin of the middle east for all of recorded history, to them on a platter. We've rendered our military combat-ineffective for at least the next 3 years and shattered our officer corps' confidence in their civilian leadership for the second time in as many generations.

We've gone in 5 years from a surplus of willing military recruits to terrifying shortfalls for most branches. We've run off all our generals who had effective counterinsurgency doctrine and experience. We've transformed a brutal, secular dictatorship who was a mortal enemy of pan-Islamism into a brutal, religious hoplarchy that will be within the next few years the battleground to determine if the middle east is ruled by a new caliphate or some messianic Shi'ite mehdi mob. And, incidentally, we've provided an ideal training ground for pan-Islamic militants who will then export the skills they learned to God-knows-where... Madrid, Berlin, London, Kuala Lampur, Manila, Mumbai, Cleveland, Almaty... they'll go everywhere.

We've driven our corrupt, despotic client states into animosity against us, meaning we now have corrupt, despotic states that don't even do what we tell them to anymore. Worst of both worlds.

We've set in motion what seems to be an inexorable nationalism that will lead to either an independent Kurdistan (and therefor a war involving Turkey, probably our most crucial ally in the region) or a genocide of several million Kurds.

We've pushed Iran via Iraq, which means we pushed Iran, which means we pushed Pakistan, which means we pushed India, which means we pushed China. Proponents of "domino" theories always seem to forget that we tend to knock over more dominos accidentally than we save intentionally -- and Pakistan (God forbid) may well be this war's Cambodia.

We face an endgame in Iraq where the best case scenario is a an anti-American shi'ite coalition, allied with Iran, linking Iran to Syria. The worse scenarios involve the nightmare possibility of a new caliphate, a revolution in Turkey, and a Sunni leader who gets that magic combination of having popular support and oil money -- if that happens, all bets are off.

What, exactly, does the Senator from New York imagine we can salvage from this absurd fiasco?

Maher was right: these might be nice guys to have a beer with, but I can't help wondering if we'd have been better off if they were on the other guys' side.